I know that it was agreed to take Estimates on Thursdays but I should like to ask the Minister for Labour, through you, Sir, why the Redundancy Payments Bill is not being finished? Could the Minister not have used the opportunity of getting the Bill through the House today? It is an important Bill. Every day people are losing their jobs because there are those who want to avoid what the Bill will do and they are dodging this by letting people go. We have evidence of this. While I know it was agreed by the Whips to take Estimates on Thursdays we have on other occasions found the Order of Business being changed on Thursdays and other days for the purpose of getting important business through the House. I just want to register this personal protest because I feel the Redundancy Payments Bill is a most important Bill for the workers in view of the redundancies which are occurring. I feel that a mistake has been made that we are not taking this this morning and I would appeal to the Minister to get it through as quickly as he can.
The Department of Labour were set up some years ago with a great fanfare of trumpets and were supposed to end all our troubles so far as labour matters were concerned. It is regrettable that this has not been achieved. This is not because the officials of the Department have not being doing everything they can, under the terms of reference which they have, to run things properly. The fact is that we are no nearer a solution to our problems than when the Department were set up. Yesterday evening, for what reason I do not know, possibly because the ICTU booklet had been issued and it has a handy reference, we had Deputies coming in here talking about the number of strikes that have taken place in recent times and they used the "in" words "we are top of the league" or "we are third from the top of the league" as far as strikes are concerned in Europe. We even had a rather naïve suggestion from a Fianna Fáil Deputy whose name, as he is a friend of mine, I will not mention, that the cause of the strikes was that there are too many unions and that in certain Iron Curtain countries there was only one union. I did not know whether he had in mind that some place like the saltmines should be opened in Longford-Westmeath, or over in the west, to which those who did not behave properly could be sent.
It always mystifies me why people, both inside and outside the House, who do not know the cause of strikes or who do not take the trouble to find out, consider that they have a right to speak out on matters on which they know so little. Yesterday when I was in the Chair for a short time I heard a comment from somebody who was objecting because auctioneers had a vested interest in the Forcible Entry Bill before the House. A suggestion was made that trade union officials and employer representatives had a vested interest in the question of labour relations. We have, and we do not deny it. It is our job to try to improve labour relations. When people talk about where we stand in the league we know that we must compare like with like. It is ridiculous to talk about the percentage of people unemployed here because of strikes and to compare that figure with the percentage of unemployed in Britain. That is not a fair comparison.
The Department of Labour have not yet attempted to segregate the particular areas of unrest and to find out why strikes recur in certain types of employment. CIE have had more than their share of strikes. From my experience and dealings with CIE if the people in that firm who were negotiating with me and dealing with wages of employees are typical of those who negotiate on a national scale with other trade unions, I am not surprised that we have had numerous strikes in CIE. If I tell the Minister that a wage demand served in July, 1970, which has been before the Labour Court twice, has not yet been finalised he will understand the position. The people who represent CIE are most obstructive. When the Labour Court recommended after a full hearing and after seven weeks' consideration that CIE should discuss with the union the matter which was the cause of the dispute, CIE took about ten minutes in which they used whatever type of insulting behaviour they could to prove that they were not going to negotiate. They went back to conciliation and they attempted to prove there that what they had tried to do the first time was the correct way. They argued further at the Labour Court hearing as they had done at the first hearing. If that is typical of CIE it is no wonder that they have strikes so often.
Strike action should only be used as a last resort. It is a pity that the people most affected by strike action are fellow-workers of those on strike. We must all consider this matter. Having been in the trade union movement for so long and having participated in so many strikes myself, I appreciate that there is a point at which people who can find no other way to solve their problems are tempted to go on strike. I appeal to everyone concerned to consider the effects of strike action on innocent people who cannot hope to gain from it. This should be considered before strike action is taken. We are supposed to be entering a civilised era. Those of us who are involved in the trade union movement should do everything we can in order to avoid hardship to the general public through strikes. We know that the only way in which some employers can be made act is by directing public opinion against them. A situation can be reached where it is necessary to do something in order to force an employer to be reasonable.
The Department of Labour might check on strikes which occurred over the last few years and compare the demands served by the trade unions with the original offer of the employers; these figures should be compared also with the final offer of the employer. If that comparison were made, I would challenge the Department of Labour to say that the workers were unreasonable. My experience has been that the final settlement is nearer the original demand of the workers than the original offer of the employer. There have been strikes and lock-outs which have damaged the economy. It often suits an employer to have a strike and saves him money. We have one small strike in progress at the moment which would fit into that category. It can be said that this is a free country and that we cannot force the employers or workers to do what is in the common good. There are State bodies, semi-State bodies and so-called private firms in this country who have been assisted many times by the taxpayers' money and they should not be allowed to draw their dividends when there is a slack period while saying to the workers "These men are being unreasonable and we will not meet them and will not agree".
An employer can arrange his affairs in such a way that he can close down at a certain period without giving any intimation of such action to the employees affected until the last moment. This trend is increasing. The Department of Labour must do something about it. There is no point in saying that the private employer is entitled to lay-off people if he has no use for them. That is so, but the employee is entitled to reasonable notification of such action. We have had experience recently of firms who have known apparently for months in advance— and where it has been alleged that the Government have known for months in advance—that they were closing down and the unfortunate employees did not know of this until they got a fortnight's notice under the Redundancy Payments Act. This matter must be dealt with at a high level.
The Department of Labour are aware from certain inquiries that have been made that there is concern about the question of the national agreement. There are people who, having participated in the drawing up of the national agreement and having examined it carefully, still do not seem to understand what it means. The national agreement covers those whose agreements had terminated. It covers a period of 18 months. It also covers people whose agreements have not yet terminated but will terminate over six, nine or 12 months. It is ridiculous to try to do as some people are doing and to say that the terms of the national agreement must bind people whose existing agreements have not yet terminated. If that is so it is extending the terms of the national pay agreement by three, six or 12 months. This was never intended and it will not be allowed.
I was amazed to find a few days ago that there were people who were engaged in negotiations who did not appreciate that this was the situation. Let me spell it out again. The national pay agreement covers a period of 18 months from the termination of an agreement on 1st January, 1971 and the agreement covers a number of matters as well as wages. Those who are already working on an existing agreement which has not yet terminated cannot be counted to be under the national agreement and, therefore, the terms of the national agreement do not apply to them. This matter must be clarified and understood by all. I do not mind those people who do not understand labour relations making a mistake in this regard but I fault those who should know about it.
There are many matters that must be cleared up. I have been a severe critic of the Labour Court from time to time. The conciliation officers of the Labour Court are doing an excellent job but I consider they are lacking in one respect. There should be a general liaison officer between the Labour Court and the trade unions whose job it would be to see if a complaint is made by either a trade union or an employers' organisation asking for conciliation, that a conference is arranged when requested. It is not sufficient to write to both sides asking if conciliation can be agreed to and a conference arranged. What happens in many cases is that the employer will not reply, the trade union may be dealing with other matters and may be waiting to see what will happen. Months may go by and eventually the people who have been waiting for the conference will get fed up and a strike may occur.
The Labour Court are doing a good job. My main criticism is the delay which takes place in some cases between the hearing of the case and the issuing of a recommendation. I discussed this with the chairman of the court and I found, that he and the officials were most courteous. I have no complaint to make against employer or employee representatives or the chairman. My complaint is that if it is to be an effective means of remedying disputes when a matter is reported to the court there should not be a delay before the case is heard at conciliation level and, if necessary, before the court. No matter what happens there should be a recommendation within a reasonable time. I do not regard seven weeks as a reasonable time to wait for a Labour Court recommendation.
There are a number of matters that cannot come before the Labour Court but that must be dealt with eventually by someone and the Department of Labour must take the initiative. We have a large number of trade unions, with a consequent large number of trade unionists. However, there is a considerable number of persons who are not members of any trade union— they may be members of house associations and so on. There are in operation certain regulations which are not being administered in a proper manner. Let us consider the case of a person who works a normal number of hours. If such a person works overtime and is not paid or compensated for it, if the person is a member of a trade union a claim will be made which will eventually find its way to the Labour Court or some kind of conciliation. If he is not a member of a trade union it is quite possible that he will have to work for very long hours without any compensation—he may have to work right through the night and all through the following day, as has happened in this House—and nobody seems to worry about it. We get promises that they will be paid; we are told "the State always deals fairly with these matters". The only thing about it is that the State does not deal fairly and, despite fair promises, the State does not pay. If the State will not pay neither will anybody else because the attitude of people is "If the State can get away with this, why should I pay?"
There are also certain areas which could be dealt with, such as people who are "put on the staff". It is a kind of magic used by certain employers who, when they get an industry going fairly well, select some people who may be a little better than the other employees and they are put on the staff. In many cases being "put on the staff" means that they are paid for longer holidays, they are paid more wages, they are entitled to sick pay and so on. However, there are certain employers who do not consider it is possible for those people who are put on the staff to be loyal to the firm if they remain members of their trade union. These employees are told "You are on the staff now. You should not be a member of a trade union. After all, you are in control of a certain number of people". If those people fall ill they are not paid, or if they work long hours they will not get compensation. This nice little racket has been worked by people for many years and it is something the Minister might inquire into. It may not be as easy as it seems to solve but something should be done.
In regard to the Supplementary Estimates, it is rather extraordinary that immediately after the Budget—which is supposed to be the housekeeping account for the next 12 months—we find it necessary to bring in Supplementary Estimates. I was pooh-poohed by the Minister for Finance who said that this was the normal thing to do and that it has been done before. However, the fact that it has been done before does not make it any better. The housekeeper who cannot manage on her housekeeping allowance and asks for additional money during the week will not be popular and will find that her methods of housekeeping will be questioned. However, the State apparently thinks that so far as its housekeeping is concerned there is nothing wrong in introducing a Budget for 12 months and immediately afterwards introducing Supplementary Estimates.
The money is required and it is for a good purpose but, with due respect to the Minister and his officials, there is no reason why a week earlier it could not have been made known that this extra money was required and, therefore, the money included in the Budget. I have been on a local authority for a long time and I know that every time we meet to strike the rates we get requests from every sector who are in any way affected asking us not to over-expend during the year. From time to time someone who has been well primed by a Minister will get up and make a proposition that in no circumstances will there be over-expenditure during the year—knowing quite well that there will be over-expenditure. The State also decides that it will require additional money.
Money provided for AnCO is money well spent. As I commented during the Budget debate, the provision of new training headquarters is an excellent idea. All I regret is that the Taoiseach does not come from Meath because we could do with something like that down there, particularly in the town of Navan which is the home of furniture making as well as producing other commodities. Attempts were made to have a furniture training school there but this did not do so well. Perhaps the reason for this was that the State was not in a position to provide the necessary funds. This school was opened with much fanfare but it disappeared very quietly and nobody was supposed to remark that it had closed. When I asked a question here in connection with it the new "in" expression of "anti-national" was thrown at me. The Minister for Foreign Affairs seems to have claimed that expression for his own.
We must train more people but we must also do something else and this is where I take issue with the Minister for Labour. There appears to be the idea that it is all right to train people without going into very much detail as to what they should be trained for. I am surprised that so far nobody has produced a document indicating what are the skills likely to be required in this country whether we are in or out of the Common Market. Until a few months ago we were training people for the textile industry at a time when many textile factories were closing down. A great deal of money was spent on this training. If people are to be trained they should be trained in skills that will be useful to them and skills that will be required because it is worse than useless to train people in skills that are not required. In the same way it is useless to train people and give them the impression that when their training is completed there will be jobs for them when we know, as experience has shown, that those jobs do not exist. This seems to be the present situation.
Some of my friends from the west may slate me for saying that there has been too much emphasis on the west in relation to training because the industries are not there, that the industries are in the east and in the south. Therefore, provision should be made for the training of people in the eastern part of the country for jobs that will be there for them when their training is completed. To emphasise the point I am making, I shall take mining as an example. At present mining is a big business in this country but how much training in mining is being given by AnCO or by anybody else? What schemes are there to train young people who should be able to do well paid jobs in mining in the years ahead?
In certain parts of the country at present and, particularly, around this city, there is a grave shortage of craftsmen for house building. Has any effort been made to reach agreement with the craftsmen's unions so as to ensure that there will be a supply of young craftsmen to take the place of those who retire? Have any efforts been made to ensure that the many people who have been working at crafts for a number of years but who have not served their time would be accepted by the craft unions? I am not speaking for them but I am only making the suggestion that they could be brought into the trade to do jobs that are there for them.
It is my opinion that the Department of Labour are not taking enough trouble in this respect. It was not enough to set up the Department and to decide to do what was being done by other Departments. I do not wish to embarrass the Secretary of the Department but I know that he is a man who is not afraid to try new ideas. The whole emphasis from the Government side should be on an attempt to make the Department of Labour a Department whose job it will be to look to the future and to ensure that every effort is made to keep things going.
It is unfortunate that unemployment figures have continued to increase. The decision to remove certain persons from the unemployment register for one reason or another is nonsensical. There is no point in trying to reduce the register by saying that people are not unemployed and by not giving them any money. There are many people unemployed. Also, there are many young people studying for academic careers which, again, do not appear to be there for them. Anybody who listened to the news bulletin this morning will know what is happening in respect of one of the teaching professions.
There are many young people now approaching the stage where they must decide whether they will have an academic career or otherwise. Nobody seems to realise that these young people who are striving to get four honours in the leaving certificate so as to qualify for admission to a university and train for God knows what, would be much better off in many cases if they were trained for a craft. This should be the task of the Department of Labour. They must not try to shrug it off and pretend that the Department of Education or somebody else are responsible. They must start in the schools because it appears that the older section of our community cannot be trained for anything. When I asked the Minister for Labour some time ago why advertisements were being inserted in English newspapers asking people to come home to this country either to jobs that were there for them or to be trained for particular jobs at a time when we had more than 60,000 people unemployed, the Minister's reply was depressing especially to a person like myself who knows a lot about the way these people live. The Minister told me that it was not possible to train most of the people who are on the unemployment register. I would not agree with that but I would agree that because of our peculiar social welfare system whereby people have been retained on the unemployment register for many years, some of them not having worked for a long time, it would not be possible for them to be trained and they would not be able to take a job. However, it should be possible to train at least half of those who are on the unemployment register assuming, of course, that there would be jobs for them when they had completed their training.
Until we reach the stage where we have a Government who will say that, first of all, there must be employment for our people and, if the employment is not available, a Government who will go out and create industries that will provide jobs, we will continue to have a high unemployment figure. Let me emphasise, however, that there is no point in starting a factory in Connemara for people who are living in Dublin just as there would be no point in starting a factory in Athlone for people who are living in Donegal. Factories should be sited where the pool of employment is available. I believe it should be possible for the Department of Labour to make arrangements for those who are signing for unemployment benefit or assistance over a lengthy period to be provided with work by private enterprise, if that is how the Government want it, or if that does not work out, the Government should have the responsibility of starting industries where these people can be employed and the training should fall on the Department of Labour.
Those are the points I want to make. I have no quarrel with the Department of Labour. As individuals, I think they are doing the best they can under the circumstances but I do not think the initiative I expect from the Department is there. The Government are not giving them a fair deal. There should be a new charter for the Department of Labour whereby it could step out on its own and say: "We must have full employment. We are the people to get the workers and train them for it." I hope we shall soon see an effort made to do something like that.
